User talk:Lestrade

Wicked Lady

By undoing my corrections for The Wicked Lady, you re-introduced the errors that I corrected! Why? Jsondow (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Jsondow

In looking over the undoing, I am confused and cannot tell who made what error. Please make your changes again so that we can see what you were trying to do.Lestrade (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

---

Hegel & clarity

Dear Lestrade, I appreciate your desire to avoid unclear adjectives in the Idealism article, specifically "real" in the first sentence. However I don't think that "as we experience it" makes the point. "Real" is a technical term for Hegel, as the section of the Idealism article that deals with Hegel brings out. Hegel distinguishes between "existing" and being "real"; hence the two parts of the clause that you edited ("a world of material objects containing no thought either could not exist, or would not be fully 'real'"). And Hegel doesn't in any way appeal to the "world as we experience it": for him, that would not be a philosophical argument. I realize that the clause as I drafted it won't be crystal clear to a reader who's not yet familiar with Hegel's distinction. But I think it's important to register the distinction, because it's important not to give readers the mistaken impression that all idealists deny the possible "existence" of a world containing no thought. Hegel, in particular, doesn't deny it. I'd be grateful for any thoughts you have about this issue. best, Bob Wallace philosop@execpc.com

---

Greatest books

In regards to your comment "Greatest?" on the Emerson page: As a scholar and book collector, to my knowledge this is true in 2 of such collections of the "100 Greatest Books of All Time Collections" done by 2 publishing companies, both the Franklin Library and the Easton Press. Hope this helps. colinrcummings

---

I notice that you've edited a few philosophy articles. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about philosophy in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on philosophical topics. Banno 21:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Forum discussion

I think the issue sufficiently interesting to get outside opinions. This forum is predominantly idealist, so Perhaps the idea will get a sympathetic hearing[[1]].

---

Welcome to Wikipedia. You have been editing for a few weeks, so probably you feel comfortable with it by now. But you may still find some helpful info: click here

• Be Bold with your edits but also be moderate, check out the policy on NPOV, or neutral point of view and remember to cite your sources. Proper Wikiquette suggests it is a good idea to make a suggestion first on the discussion page of a controversial article before making substantial edits, if you wish to avoid an edit war. We do not own the material we contribute, so be prepared to have your entries edited mercilessly— the thought "but it's my article" should never cross your mind.

• You can find help with editing at How to edit a page including how to do special characters and formatting, and the Manual of Style is also strongly recommended.

• When most of us start working on Wikipedia or its sister projects we think of them mainly as information resources, but Wikipedia is also an international community. It is a way for us to share and collaborate as we work towards the elusive goal of consensus. Check out the Community portal at the left of any page to find many opportunities to work together.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Happy Editing. --Blainster 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi lestrange , nice name and page. Come and comment on mine, it's really cool!I have info on lots of things...... thanks..--Jasminekellis21 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

italicization of titles

Hi, thanks for the message. Book titles should be italicized. I think it's because links get underlined, so underlining titles would often be superfluous. Essay titles should be within quotation marks, as you know. Good work on German Idealism! --goethean ॐ 16:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Lichtenberg quote

Hello. Could you provide the original German of the Göttinger Taschen Calender quote, as you did for the Waste books quote? I try to find it out myself, but my Promies edition seems not contain it. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 12:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see... so what's your source of the English? It might give us clues to trace the original. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 14:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

just to say sorry... I mixed up your edits with another guy's, only now do I know that it's not you who added the unsourced quote. Sorry for the bothering. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 07:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Article creation

An article you recently created, Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's schemata, has been speedily deleted because it gave no context. Also, since it consisted almost solely of quoted text, it may have been a copyright violation. When creating articles, please be sure to provide enough context to be informative to general readers. Citing sources as you did is strongly encouraged, but please do not simply copy large blocks of text, even with attribution, as the sole content of the article. Thank you. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Darn! I forgot to give a context! Can you believe it? Now Kant scholars, connoisseurs, and aficionados will not be able to access the important article regarding Schopehauer's criticism of Kant's schemata. Tant pis. Quel dommage. The reason that it had quite a few quotations is that Schopenhauer stated the case so well that it is impossible to restate it in a better manner.Lestrade (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Re:Gender-neutral language

Regarding use of "guys" – I don't know why people don't object to the word. Maybe because it's more informal? ... discospinster _talk 22:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy, McCarthyism

I am inviting all recent editors of Joseph McCarthy to comment on a current dispute. User:KarlBunker, in his stated view out of concern for WP:NPOV#Undue weight, has reverted, deleted, and selectively reinstated factually accurate sourced information that I have added. I contend he is in error. Please see the discussion at Talk:Joseph McCarthy. Thank you. Kaisershatner 17:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The Antichrist

Yo, just stopping by to congratulate your excellent work on the Antichrist article, much appreciated, keep it up!Skomorokh 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Schopenhauer

This writer is fascinated by Schopenhauer, even though he knows that Schopenhauer was very wrong on many topics. However, Schopenhauer seems to have been very right about many issues that other writers could never have understood.

When past thinkers, such as Schopenhauer, are disregarded because it is believed that they have been superseded, their valuable contributions are lost. Then, later thinkers must reinvent and rediscover, if they are fortunate, what had already been given to them, sometimes in a purer form than they could find for themselves. Lestrade 22:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC) Lestrade

well said!! it would seem to me that you have taken up 'true education' if you consider the following opinion: "I believe that true education accepts the greatness of a personality and corrects small errors, or brings incompleted thoughts to conclusion." (Rudolf Steiner, from 'Friedrich Nietzsche-Fighter for Freedom'). just wanted you to know that i appreciate your thoughtful comments. all the best -- Johnrpenner 16:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful, beautiful work on "Schopenhauer's criticism of the Kantian philosophy." Well done! (Signed, a satisfied and enlightened Wiki reader.) Ocanoe (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You are funny

"It is an occupational hazard for women who are gym teachers or public speakers." I don't care what they say about you, you're funny.KD Tries Again 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)KD

Gould, Bernstein & Brahms 1962

Hello. Can you explain why you deleted the text I inserted about the (in)famous 1962 performance? Deleting good-faith additions without so much as a word of explanation seems somewhat rude to me. Cheers -- JackofOz 07:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. My sincere apologies, Lestrade. I was confusing you with another user. Cheers. -- JackofOz 00:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Aesthetics

Hi Lestrade,

Thank you for your contribution to Aesthetics. I created the whole bottom portion of the page (about Aesthetics in various fields) so I always welcome new contributions.

My focus on the bottom section has been to point out the aesthetic values that make up a particular field of art. The present section on Digital Art reads, however, like somebody trying to justify that Digital Art is indeed Art. We already grant you that. So move on. What specific Aesthetic features come into play when designing Digital Art. That is what should go into this section. So as not to enter an edit-war, I'll append my observations to your justification, but I am still thinking the justification is unnecessary.

Best regards, Jeff C —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffC (talk • contribs) 03:43, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Heinrich Ewald Hering

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Heinrich Ewald Hering, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/2655.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you.--Diletante 17:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know why I thought the speedy had been removed, but I now see that it wasn't. Totally my mistake, please accept my apologies. -- Diletante 18:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself

"But we don't gape at mathematics. We use mathematical symbols to measure and organize quantities."

That is nonsense. You don't gape at mathematics. You may perhaps use it only for those utilitarian purposes. Speak for yourself. Michael Hardy 22:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mathematicians assert that they experience beauty and elegance in mathematics, but they never explain or try to make sense of their assertion. They want to convince listeners that they are speaking of a mystical experience, unavailable to the lay public."

Sigh.... The word "never" here is greatly exaggerated. It is true that mathematicians are generally quite inept at explaining this phenomenon. But in fact most mathematicians would love to make it broadly available and very many of them attempt to do so. Sometimes it's done very well by skillfully exhibiting examples (I'm thinking of Stanley Ogilvy's book Excursions in Geometry and some others like it), but rarely does any mathematician do a good job of explaining it. Some of Gian-Carlo Rota's comments in his book Indiscrete Thoughts (not to be confused with his other book Discrete Thoughts) do far better at explaining it than most mathematicians have done. In particular he makes a careful distinction between beauty and elegance. (He ends up at a bottom-line conclusion that I don't agree with, though.) Michael Hardy 22:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Art Renewal Center

I did reply to your post... Tyrenius (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Michael Richards are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jaysweet (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Detroit

Thanks for fixing things at Sensualism. I've never been to Detroit. Why do you ask? --JWSchmidt (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

FYI Eusebeus (talk)

I have no idea what this means.Lestrade (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

May 2008

Regarding your comments on Talk:John Updike: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Berkeley

Hello, I'm working in the Spanish wikipedia and today I've been translating the article A_Treatise_Concerning_the_Principles_of_Human_Knowledge. When I finished, looking at the book I realised that the article stops at § 86 but the book does at § 156. As it seems, when looking at the history of the article, that you are the main contributor there, my question is if you are wishing to continue soon. Were it not so, I possibly could finish the Spanish version, but my English is not so good to do the same in English (and I have only a Spanish translation of Berkeley's book anyway, so there could be mistakes in the re-translation of the terminology). In order to have unified versions I'd rather wait until you (or somebody else) finish it, but I wouldn't if it is going to take a long time. Maybe it would be better if you answered me in wikipedia.es as I don't visit the en.wikipedia that much; but you can also create a discussion page for me here if you want to, anyway. Thanks. Fernando H (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, it's been almost a month and I have still no answer. Perhaps my reference to a «discussion page» was confusing, as I see that those special pages are called «my talk pages» in the en.wikipedia. You can answer here, it would be very much appreciated. On the other hand, I just saw that you have worked on an article about the Kritik der Kantischen Philosophie by Schopenhauer; I don't think we have a parallel article in es.wikipedia so maybe in the future I'll translate that too. Thanks again, saludos. --Fernando H (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding. I fully intend to continue to contribute soon to the article on Berkeley's treatise. I hope that you find my additions to the article helpful and informative.Lestrade (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I'm sure I will! Thanks for your kind answer. --Fernando H (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

culpable traitors

"but despite revisionist claims the Rosenbergs were culpable traitors." Find a source for that wording. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's categories

I have nominated Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's categories, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant's categories. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Mayalld (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Amazing that people like Mayalld who have probably never read Schopenhauer or Kant feel compelled to indulge in such vandalism 122.160.231.174 (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Suffering

The Buddha never said that all things are suffering. What he said exactly is "sabbe sankhara dukkha" - "all conditioned phenomena are dukkha." For just what dukkha means see the article. If you have to use one word, the nineteenth century translators used "suffering." Some people nowadays say "stress." Better might be to translate it into an adjectival phrase conveying "not good enough to settle with or be completely happy forever with or complacent about." Also "controlling desires" is a very simplistic and I must say Western-centric way of looking at things. It is actually more subtle, really it is. For one thing controlling aversion is just as important. Buddhism isn't merely a philosophy. It's an integrated approach to life. Having the right view is not nearly enough. Philosophy doesn't cut it. Name one philosopher that has found "eudaimonia." You can't. That's because philosophy is ideas. Buddhism is about something much more fundamental; mind. If Schopenhauer said that the Buddha said that "all life is suffering" and that it can only be partially alleviated, then he was demonstrably completely wrong. Do you know why? The Buddha said that Nirvana, which he himself attained and certified that many of his disciples had, is a state free from suffering! That is the whole point of Buddhism! This proves that from the Buddhist perspective (and there are many, many quotes to this effect, if not from the Canon which doesn't formulate things in this way as far as I have read, then from other sources), life itself is not suffering; it's how you live. Mitsube (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana is a negative concept. It means extinction or nothingness. In other words, it means no more life. That is why Nirvana is free from suffering.Lestrade (talk) 03:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

It is often described using negative language, in the sense that the adjectives are the negations of other (negative) adjectives. It does not mean nothingness. That is a different word. The Buddha took pains to refute nihilism. Nirvana is also described as the "unborn" and "undying" and the "highest happiness." The Buddha sometimes described it as a "luminous consciousness, shining all around." For more see the article on nirvana. Mitsube (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana = Extinction = No life = No suffering. Lestrade (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Maybe we should experience it for ourselves and then argue about it. Mitsube (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Buddhism explicitly asserts that Nirvana is extinction. The difficulty is that this is a negative concept. That is, it refers to the absence of something that would be positively sensed and perceived (life, suffering). Such negative concepts must be given positive names in order to be discussed. That is the problem: a negative concept with a positive name. These are ungraspable or incomprehensible for most people.Lestrade (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Nirvana technically means "unbinding." It is the end of suffering but not of life. It is also associated with positive descriptions regarding unbound awareness as I alluded to above. Mitsube (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The etymology of the word shows that it means "blown out," as in a candle whose flame has been extinguished. You think that it designates a concept that derives from positive, sensible perceptions. This is a common failure: the inability to understand that a negative concept has to be designated by a positive word in order for it to be communicated. People can't think about negative concepts. It doesn't mean awareness or enlightenment. To me, the word "Nirvana" designates a concept that derives from the absence of a positive, perceivable perception (a flame that is no longer there). This concept was supposed to be an analogy for the absence of desire, will, craving, and therefore of suffering. Craving is the essence of life, as Schopenhauer wrote and the Buddha said.Lestrade (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

I am going to give a better etymology soon. See this for a discussion (the "blowing out" of a candle in ancient Indian thought did not annihilate the flame; it went in to an omnipresent, latent status). In fact, the Buddha used language to describe nirvanic consciousness that is very in line with this metaphor (from the Digha Nikaya 1; 123): "Consciousness, non-manifestive, infinite, accessible all around." He said "consciousness," not "nothingness" or something along those lines.

You have shown something interesting. It is true that nirvana is often described using negative language in the Pali canon. The Buddha did require his students to take a realistically pessimistic view of many things that normal people do not view in that way. There are two other ways nirvana is described; as wisdom seeing the true nature of phenomena, and as an unsupported, luminous consciousness. See this academic text for support of my point and canonical excerpts that describe nirvana in other ways. The intro gives you a good idea. I have that book now and I will expand the article on nirvana (though mention of third description of nirvana is already present). The Theravada sect which has been the preserver of the Canon does often present things with excessive stress on suffering, underemphasizing more encouraging passages. In the Mahayana (and other early non-Mahayana sects) this has not been the case. The Buddha certainly never said that "craving is the essence of life." He in fact said that all phenomena are without essence (sabbe dhamma anatta). He said that craving is the root cause of dukkha. Schopenhauer was pointing to great truths but he did not have the deeper wisdom that is acquired through meditation (and other Buddhist practices), and he wouldn't have known what to make of the technical discussions of consciousness in the Canon. Consciousness itself has not become an object of study in the West until recently. Suffering itself is "empty" and not ultimately meaningful in the Buddhist view. The ultimate perspective (of yathabutham, things as they really are) is not the negation of conventional suffering only, though the latter is a requisite condition for the former. Mitsube (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If you ever have some spare time, read Schop's The World as Will and Representation, Volume I, especially Book 4 on ethics. Nirvana = extinction of craving, willing. The candle's flame is blown out.Lestrade (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

His works are not authoritative or, it seems, correct as regards Buddhism, at least if you are conveying his interpretations accurately. This is not surprising given that he was a mid-nineteenth century philosopher working with incomplete translations from a foreign tradition. If you care to know, Buddhist studies in the west has advanced considerably since then and if you're interested in the truth you might want to look at more recent research. The conflation of willing and craving seems quite strange to me, by the way. Mitsube (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the article on that book. His idea of temporary absorption into a work of art (minus the part about Platonic ideals) recalls to some degree the absorptions of Theravada Buddhism (this kind of meditation is not unique to that sect of Buddhism; it is shared with others and with Yoga). The Buddha also declared that these highly concentrated states of mind are dukkha, in the sense that they are not ultimately satisfactory. They are however wholesome and should be cultivated. This realization of his is actually one of the things that led him to set out on his own, because many renunciates of that time and this view the attainment of the most advanced of these states as the goal of existence (viewing it as perfect knowledge or union with the worldsoul, or something along those lines), but the Buddha said that though it may seem perfect, as its effects are temporary it is not good enough. Vipassana was his major development in terms of meditative techniques. Mitsube (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Too bad that you'll never read the book.Lestrade (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Schopenhauer and German Idealism

Les, please take a look at my comments on Schopenhauer discussion page and http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/germidea.htm. The argument is unsettled, as Schopenhauer condemned certain principles of German Idealism (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/#8), but all-in-all I think Schopenhauer plays an important role in the movement. Schopenhauer's philosophy uses metaphysics, namely the "will," although he does say that will is purposeless, which as you noted is contrary to german idealism. Schopenhauer is a stepping stone beyond German idealism, but his thought is definately rooted in that movement, both stylistically and in his development of the world as "will and idea".--Chrisknop (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer: A German Idealist?

The more I look over this, the less sure I am of my previous conclusion. Though I do believe that Schopenhauer shares many thought-processes with the Idealists, and indeed the metaphysical emphasis of the Idealists, I see your point that he does not completely belong in that class. What is he then? The "Grandfather of Existentialism"? Help me out here, as there has to be some type of appropriate characterization in the introduction. --Chrisknop (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer, like Kant, was a transcendental idealist and an empirical realist. When looked at from outside of the phenomenal world, all observed objects are mere appearances. When looked at from within the phenomenal world, all experienced objects are real.Lestrade (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Spec Char

À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê Ë Ì Í Î Ï Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö Ø Ù Ú Û Ü ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í î ï ñ ò ó ô õ ö ø ù ú û ü ÿ

Commentary on Talk Page articles

I've removed this edit from Talk:Noam Chomsky. Looking over your edits I saw another one on the same article's talk page here. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums, they are places where users go to discuss issues relevant to articles. According to your edit history you have been here since 2005 and judging from the above comments you've been told from several users to desist from this activity in several different talk pages (Talk:John Updike, Talk:Michael Richards). This is a final warning to desist from that kind of activity. Once again, talk pages are not forums, the comments you are leaving on talk pages are those of which are intended to ferment conflict rather than promote co-operative editing. Further such comments on talk pages will be regarded by myself as disruption and dealt with accordingly. Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Hi! I reverted your recent edit. I made a stupid mistake and Kusunose's revert was correct. Please take a look at the original translation. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Please take a look at the talk page too. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tartuffe and hateful man

I'm torn on this. There seems to be an agenda with the amount and the manner of the references to his preferences. On the other hand, it helps to create an understanding that the normal dry material lacks. I think some tweaking should be done to make sure that all the references are appropriate to understanding his nature in the context that they are presented.Bwood 14:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a specific source which indicates Frederick as being a confirmed homosexual, but there are plenty of sources which infer it. However, there should be more information about his deeds than his orientation, IMO. Eventually I plan to see which quotes could be removed or trimmed down, but I'm not sure when I'll get around to it. Feel free to work on the text (as well as the FA review above). Olessi 01:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC) It seems someone really tried to make him look gay in the text. In reality it is commonly believed he was not interested in sexuality at all. 217.83.108.126 20:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC) This article is used to promote the usual homosexual agenda and purpose. This being to make homosexuality seem to be legitimate and widespread, thereby giving it an appearance of normalcy.Lestrade 13:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Anyway, normal, healthy and peaceful people are those who have normal relation with other people know that homosexual people are as """normal""" as heterosexual people. Homophoby is hate, it is one of the real abnormality in the world and, therefore, homophobic and intolerant people.

Our sympathies. Felix Kersten, Heinrich Himmler's masseur, amusingly records in his memoirs that when he told him that his hero Frederick was homosexual, he likewise became upset. Engleham 12:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your sympathy is not warranted. There is absolutely no evidence to sustain the inference about homosexuality. No one wrote first-hand observations. Frederick did not record any statements regarding such behavior. This article's constant references to his male companions and acquaintances is simply an example of the intention of homosexuals to make it seem as though famous people share their unnatural and harmful behavior.Lestrade 19:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade re: lestrade--It's fun to be piggish and bigoted, neh? I do agree, however, that the article is coming at the point too obliquely--it might note that certain (cited) sources have inferred or implied his homosexuality but then tell the story of his childhood etc. in less colored language. I've never read anything explicitly suggesting he was anything but uninterested in sexuality, but if those texts exist, I'd like to see them cited and have done with it.--74.100.116.23 19:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am also piggish and bigoted, but it is because I have a low tolerance for serial murderers, kidnappers, drunks, and child molesters. Is it bad to be piggish and bigoted? Should I have counseling?69.19.14.29 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)OttoVonBirthmarck

By the way, the homosexuality of Frederick II was acknowledge by the PRINCE DE LIGNE, who had a discussion with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.93.47 (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

On this pair of edits: As explained here, please do not remove comments from an article talk page, even your own comments. If there's something you regret having said, you are free to strike it through. (If there's something in particular that you very much regret having said, you might delete it but leave a note saying that you have deleted it.) Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Big Bang for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about.Lestrade (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Perfect Strangers (1945 film) comments

I have removed your talk page comments inasmuch as they "are not relevant to improving the article" (WP:TALK) and seem to be mostly based on an inaccurate plot summary, which I have corrected. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin

You have got some nerve! But it is easy to find cranks in philosophy. Doesn' t Ludwig W. come to mind as worldclass crank material? Putnam (his work only of course) can look a bit cranky in a sf way? I always hated the Kunstwerkaufsatz myself (but find that C. Haxthausen' s pdf-ied essay on Carl Einstein and W. B. has a page on B. reasons behind this awful piece of nonsense that actually makes good sense of B' s intentions). Points in B.'s favour: his Baudelaire is great. He liked photography and wrote about Eduard Fuchs. He collected toys. he was very intelligent, which is more than can be said of a lot of philosophers. Points against B's reputation: Trauerspielbuch is unreadable. Passagenwerk not much more than a glorified Zettelkasten. And his political ideas were as awful as one expects. And the way he lets himself be treated by Brecht and this Stalinist c**t Lacis is simply disgusting. On the other hand I suspect it is mostly the B cult that ruins everything about him now. If there was not this endless hagiography one might be able to be more fair.--Radh (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Jean-Paul Marat

The sewers. Frania W. (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia punctuation

It's all explained in the relevant section of WP:MOS, which I linked to in my edit summary... AnonMoos (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

c²

If e = mc² and c = movement of approximately 2.98 x 10⁸ meters for every second, then mass is converted to energy when mass is accelerated to movement of 8.88 x 10¹⁶ square meters for every square second. Does this sound right? Lestrade (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

No, totally wrong. This equation has nothing to do with acceleration. SBHarris 03:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

m²/sec² means a change of distance for every second, occurring every second. That is acceleration. According to the Acceleration wiki–article, acceleration is measured in metres per second squared (m/s²).Lestrade (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Yes, but m²/sec² is not the same as m/s². Notice there's an extra "meter" in c^2. So it's distance times acceleration. Add the mass and now you have mass times distance times acceleration. Like mhg or mgh. Mass times acceleration gives you a force. Force times distance gives you energy. SBHarris 09:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Speed of light, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your trolling on this article to fuel the fires of idiocy is not appreciated. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Herta Muller

I don't understand how Urban XII's latest edit summaries are at all appropriate. Can you help me understand how your edits, my edits or the edits of other people to the main page have anything to do with soapboxes? Your help is appreciated. Feketekave (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see his words in [[2]]. See also the warnings I had already left in his talk page. Feketekave (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Epiphany etc

Hi

If discussions continue I think it might be better conducted on our own pages, but feel free to not !

Also wondered if you had joined here [3] ?

I suspect you may have already, but in case you hadn't...

Chaosdruid (talk) 08:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Chris Matthews are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Chris Matthews for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:John Lithgow for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Jayson Werth

Werth's incident with a fan is not notable in terms of his baseball career. While it was covered, it's not particularly encyclopedic. If you think it should be included, I suggest first finding, and properly citing, the correct reliable sources (which I know exist), and then discussing it on the article's talk page. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 13:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, you need to discuss the validity of this information on the article's talk page. Please do not re-insert it, as this is a biography of a living person and is subject to stricter standards than a normal article. Potential libel is an issue here, so please utilize the discussion page for its intended purpose. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 02:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

St. Elizabeths Hospital

This is how it is in all the sources and I was surprised not to see the apostrophe. Don't know why it doesn't have an apostrophe, but not one of the three biographies sitting on my desk use an apostrophe. Thought you might be interested. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason may be that we are in the midst of a revolution in which all traditional and settled conventions are to be turned into their opposites, to be either destroyed or else retained in a new condition. Regarding this topic, it is evident that adding an "s" to a word is coming to mean possession. Adding an "apostrophe s" will mean plurality to future generations.Lestrade (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

That may be true, but sources written in the early 1970s don't use the apostrophe, so in this case it's a long revolution. I do admit, it's very odd. Had to double-check the sources a few times. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Rex Stout for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SummerPhD (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see the trolls are still after you, Lestrade! Really amazing the kind of patience you show to these fools. 122.180.26.249 (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Walter Benjamin

Hi Lestrade!

You wrote a couple of years ago:

Against my will, it started to occur to me that Walter Benjamin might have been a bit of a fraud, possibly approaching being a crank. He might have appropriated Hegel's technique of arcane obfuscation. The Frankfurt University may have correctly seen through his ploy when it rejected Origin of German Tragic Drama. Can we take seriously auratic perception, Jewish mysticism and a history of the Paris outdoor arcades? Susan Sontag gave it her best New York Intellectual effort in an attempt to justify Benjamin's confused style. She would have been intimately familiar with many other such creations. The 9th thesis from Theses on the Philosophy of History is extremely contrived. Klee's crude artwork is comic when it is used as an illustration of Benjamin's strange concept of the Angel of History. I want to believe that Walter Benjamin produced valuable writings. Have there been any skeptics who don't agree with the conventional or Marxist evaluation of this unfortunate man's body of work?Lestrade (talk)

You actually have a point above and your lines confirm that I am not alone in my own suspicion (that somehow matches your doubts) that W.B. might have been (or rather still is as he "survives" via his posthumous body of works) quite a controversial character. I think he was a genius, definitely someone of an out of this world intelligence. But a genius with hints of a charlatan. I just happen to have read last night a book on Walter Benjamin which is quite a comprehensive body of work on him: Ingrid and Konrad Scheurmann, For Walter Benjamin (3 volumes), in Spanish, English and German (Bonn: AsKI e.v. and Inter Nationes, 1994). It comes as no surprise to realize he intrigued many a fellow philosopher and was even viewed with suspicion. So yes, there have been skeptics.

Here is what Werner Kraft (pity he's got only a de.wikipedia page and not an English one too!) has got to say about W.B. whom he knew very well personally, in his volume "Spiegelung der Jugend" (Frankfurt/Main 1973, pp. 71-83):

"I know today what I have already knew at that time: the man is a scoundrel. Benjamin, the liar"

Yet much as he dislikes the man, Werner Kraft, who was also Jewish, is elogious when it comes to B.'s work. So W.B. is a scoundrel but one who is behind a work of genius. Writes Werner Kraft in his Diary :

"The Origin of German Tragic Drama. After all a serious book! Grasping the world completely meaningfully, as a completely meaningful whole (...). Here -for W.B.- the intrinsic theory is that the object of knowledge is not identical with the truth. That is to be found in ideas (Plato). Those are seen as being registered in language."

So I too would neither call Benjamin's style "confusing" (as you do) nor "contrived" but rather "complex" and "meaningful" much as it is not concerned with those simple truths we often overrate out of laziness of mind or lack of intellectual finesse. Apostolos Margaritis (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I notice that you have been using the Walter Benjamin talk page to post comments about your personal opinion of Benjamin's work, without any reference to the article or what, if any, changes you think should be made to it. This is not what talk pages are for, and I know that you know that's true, because reading your own talk page I see that you've been rebuked before for using talk pages to post your own opinions about the subject matter, without actually making any contribution to the editing process. It would be a good idea for you to stop doing this, wouldn't it? Thanks. Lexo (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

After repeated rebukes, I have finally realized the error of my ways and am making every effort to restrict my comments to the mechanics and the form, not the content, of the articles.Lestrade (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

Mara Liasson, more trouble at NPR

There is more going on with Mara Liasson over at NPR and she may soon be the next victim of their purge.

A freakish on-air episode today where Robert Segal was scary and intimidating towards her directly on air (on todays "All Things Considered") may be a strong hint that she is 'next' over there, following Juan Williams.

The Mara Liasson Wikipedia article sure needs some balanced editing, if you have any free time.

98.245.150.162 (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. by "Today", I meant 1/11/2010-- still today in my time zone but not Wikipedias default time zone).

98.245.150.162 (talk) 05:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Doc Martin are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's one of Nietzsche's sayings.

The "I am more a Pole than I am God." Page 76 if the link does not work correctly. [4] --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The way it was used in the article, it appears to be taken out of context. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Otto Liman von Sanders

Was he a Jew? Do you have better sources about it? Böri (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I only repeated what I heard on the television show titled "The Military Channel (Clash of Warriors)."Lestrade (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

I found this site: http://home.comcast.net/~jcviser/aok/liman.htm It says: "his father was the Jewish banker Isaac Liepmann" & "In Palestine he was defeated by the British under Allenby and the Arabs under T.E. Lawrence." Böri (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Xenophanes quote

Thanks for adding the original Greek word in this sentence: "Ethiopians say that their gods are snub–nosed [σιμούς] and black Thracians that they are pale and red-haired."

I was wondering, if you have access to the Greek text, what original Greek word was translated here as "red haired"? As the footnote states, several translations of this passage render it as "blond haired" rather than "red haired"; so is it a word in Greek that can mean either? Thanks again, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"γλαυκούς και πυρρούς <φασι πἑλεσθαι>" is supposed to mean "grey [or light blue or bluish green] eyes and red hair <they say πἑλεσθαι>." I don't have access at the present moment to a Greek-English dictionary. World-wide web translators are no help.Lestrade (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Thanks, I just found one definition for pyrrhos as either "flame colored or red hair"... so we still can't say for sure of Thracians were blond...? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

φοινἰκεον can mean "red." Clement must have used the metaphor, in his Stromata, of fire when he described the color of the hair [hair like fire]. The Thracians must have had "red" hair, similar to the hair color of many people in Ireland. This hair color is not really "red." It is some degree on the continuum between orange and brown. Therefore it was not blonde. I've seen χλωρὸν translated as "yellow," but it is really supposed to mean "green," as in "chloro-." Lestrade (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

Effie Gray

Hi, I confess I've no idea what your comment is trying to get at, or what statement of my own it is responding to. Do you have some specfic issue about the Ruskin article or the Effie Gray article? On the general point, we do have a statement by Ruskin. All history is interpreted from a range of evidence. Personal statements may involve outright lying, self-deception or misunderstanding, so statements in themselves are not the be-all and end-all of legitimate historical investigation. Many things remain ultimately unknowable, but that does not mean that we cannot reasonably debate what may be the most likely or best supported explanation given the historical context and the known content of what Ruskin and Effie do say. Paul B (talk)

Brian Greene

I appreciate the comments you made on the talk page regarding this person and his issues for which I think you deserve a Harry Houdini award (who spent much of his life exposing Mediums). I agree entirely with your attitude which articulates concerns I have had for a long time about this school of pop science that glibly panders to mysticism. Your interlocutor there is only the second person among those ostensibly in the scientific community to concede in a popular venue that these statements are metaphors and not strictly accurate, the other being the moderator on a science discussion board who made a similar concession, stating that this form of popularization of current science was perhaps more misleading than it should be. I think these metaphors fail on their own terms as communicative devices to the laity, particularly with anyone in the non-scientific community who is critically minded and has an affinity with empiricism and basic logic. So now we know the empty void of space and its temporal context is not actually a curved fabric. how could it be? but that's how it continues to be promoted and adhered to as a belief system by the masses who buy into these "fun facts".

An example of Mr. Greene's carnival barker spin can be seen in a New Years' Day front page New York Times article about time from circa 2004 in which he states in facile fashion that time operates at high speeds differently based on the behavior of a mechanical measuring device called a clock. Thank goodness that in the 18th Century when the nautical clock was invented, scientific minds had a clear conception that time exists independently of whatever unstable physical situs a particular person might be in.

It seemed when Greene was on Fresh Air on NPR that host Terry Gross was losing her patience with him, that like me as a listener she felt her intelligence was not being respected. In that connection I was a little concerned when I saw these ideas being bandied about in the ridiculous movie, "What the Bleep is This?", a frivolous New Age paen to the unexplained.Tom Cod (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that a few years ago. Since then I have begun to have more appreciation for Greene's writing. I still think that such writers are stifling original thought by presenting metaphors as though they were objective reality. People say, "Oh, I know what gravitation is. It is the bent, twisted, warped fabric of spacetime. End of story. No questions, please." The same for "The universe is made of little vibrating strings."Lestrade (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

see wp:Tea

Thank you for your comments on Talk:John Stuart Mill. 141.218.36.41 (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC) That is if wikpedia ever gets done processing.  ;-) 23:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)